Reframing the "Dilemma" in Illinois: A Response to Verstegen and Driscoll

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to replicate the analysis made by D. Verstegen and L. Driscoll in The Illinois Dilemma (2008) utilizing the actual allocations to districts resulting from the funding formula in Illinois for the 2004-2005 school year to understand the influence of adjusted values on determinants of fiscal equity. The results of a study by the Illinois Education Research Council (IERC) showed that actual, unadjusted values revealed a more fiscally inequitable system than reported by Verstegen and Driscoll as determined by the calculations traditional to school finance. For example, where Verstegen and Driscoll reported a range per pupil of $16,620 for all districts, IERC found a range of $28,578 per pupil. Illinois' multiple district configurations influenced the analysis. Illinois has three basic types of school districts-elementary, high school, and unit (K-12) districts. Elementary districts, which represent 26.5% of the state's pupil count, contributed the greatest influence on the inequitable findings. Furthermore, IERC's study found ten elementary districts-representing just 0.29% of all pupils in Illinois-had considerable influence on fiscal equity, as evidenced by the range per pupil for all district types dropping to $9,468 from $28,579 when they were excluded from the analysis. The study concludes that researchers must acknowledge the efforts that states employ to address additional funding for populations of interest, that policymakers must insist on both adjusted and unadjusted figures, and that an Illinois-specific and comprehensive report is needed which includes analyses of both General State Aid (the funding formula) and categorical aid which is outside the formula.

The Effects of the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law Adjustment and Hold Harmless Provision on Equity in the Illinois General State Aid Funding System, 2000 - 2011

“…Verstegen and Driscoll (2008) concluded that the State of Illinois needed to provide a majority of the funding to school districts and reduce the reliance on local property tax. Mullin and Brown (2009) Brown (2009) concluded that the equity indices were worse than the original study indicated. They indicated that the difference in findings was partly due to 45 Verstegen and Driscoll (2008) not fully describing the source of the variables used in their study.…”

“…It seems that a difference in methodology between the two studies also added to the inconsistent findings. Mullin and Brown (2009) chose not to include categorical funding as part of the state revenue in their analysis. Also, they decided to use the school district as the unit of analysis rather than the student.…”

“…Recommendations made by Mullin and Brown (2009) included addressing special interest populations, analyzing both adjusted and unadjusted data, and preparing a comprehensive state report. Most of these recommendations stemmed from a difference in opinion as to whether categorical funding and special population adjustments should be included in the equity measures or not.…”

“…Most of these recommendations stemmed from a difference in opinion as to whether categorical funding and special population adjustments should be included in the equity measures or not. Verstegen and Driscoll (2009) responded to the criticisms included in the replication study by Mullin and Brown (2009). They reviewed their original study and compared it to the Mullin and Brown (2009) replication study.…”

“…Verstegen and Driscoll (2009) responded to the criticisms included in the replication study by Mullin and Brown (2009). They reviewed their original study and compared it to the Mullin and Brown (2009) replication study. They indicated Verstegen and Driscoll (2009) reiterated their original findings that the Illinois funding system is inequitable and is not wealth neutral (does not provide equal opportunities for all students).…”